Central Information Commission
Vinod Bijubhai Chavda vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 12 November, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/122837-UM
Mr. Vinod Bijubhai Chavda
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
EPFO Regional Office
Panchayat Nagar Chowk
University Road Rajkot -360005
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2021
Date of Decision : 12.11.2021
Date of RTI application 07.12.2018
CPIO's response 04.01.2019
Date of the First Appeal 16.02.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 13.03.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points:
Page 1 of 4etc. The CPIO/RPFC-II, EPFO, Rajkot vide letter dated 04.01.2019 informed the appellant that information pertains to third party. Hence, information cannot be provided.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 13.03.2019 directed the CPIO to provide information to the appellant as available on office record. Further, FAA directed the department for call explanation of CPIO for carelessness in performance of duty.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vinod Bijubhai Chavda, through AC; Respondent: Absent.
The Appellant was contacted on the phone due to containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country. The Appellant remained clueless about the contents of the RTI Application and informed the Commission that he was not in receipt of the Notice by the Commission and directed the Commission to give him another date of hearing. The Commission told him about the constraints that the Commission was facing due to the prevailing COVID-19 crisis in the country and requested him to cooperate. The commission also tried to refresh his memory by helping him recall the contents of his RTI Application, but the Appellant remained uncooperative and overbearing and told the Commission to give him another date of hearing. It was surprising that the Appellant remained completely unaware about the application which he himself had filed.
The behavior of the Appellant during the hearing was unacceptable. He was not prepared to appreciate that even in this unprecedented situation, the Commission is trying to hear the parties virtually and through other possible modes conducive to the parties. The Commission is of the considered view that decorum of the Court should be maintained by the Appellants no less than the Respondents. The Appellant is directed to be careful on this in future.Page 2 of 4
The Respondent also remained absent during the hearing as the contact details of the Respondent was not available on the record of the Commission despite its efforts to get the same for Audio conferencing. Due to COVID-19 circumstances prevailing in the country, there was no other way of communication with him.
INTERIM DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the ongoing condition due to COVID- 19 and in the interest of justice, the Commission, hereby, adjourns the matter. In the meanwhile, the Commission directs both the parties to furnish a written submission to the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a fresh Notice for Hearing to all the parties concerned after two months from the date of receipt of this order.
The matter is, hereby, adjourned.
MAIN DECISION:
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent, Respondent: Mr. Nikunj, Regional PF Commissioner-II, present through AC.
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. In spite of contacting the Appellant number of time, the Commission was not able to contact him.
The Respondent while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that the Appellant had sought information regarding name, address and nature of work carried out by the different contractors and copy of challan etc. The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 04.01.2019 they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. When queried the Respondent submitted they had complied with the direction of First Appellate authority order on 30.05.2019 wherein they had furnished 1033 pages of essential enclosures to the Appellant and now nothing remain unanswered.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 24.06.2021 which is taken on record.Page 3 of 4
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission observes that vide letter dated 30.05.2019 an appropriate reply has been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) ू नाआयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 12.11.2021 Page 4 of 4